Protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices


Heather
 Share

Recommended Posts

But the sin of homosexuality is lust outside of marriage, that's the only sinful part of it according to the church. Been repeated many times by Dallin Oaks, President Hinkley and others. So if there is no lust, there is no sin, the Previous prophet and many speakers have all made this very clear.

The sin of homosexuality is two of the same sex having sexual intercourse or sexual relations, whether that is founded on lust or a perceived intent of genuine love does not change the fact that it is a sin.

Edited by dorave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The sin of homosexuality is two of the same sex having sexual intercourse or sexual relations, whether that is founded on lust or a perceived intent of genuine love does not change anything.

Dorave there seems to be definitional issues.

Some people see Homosexuality as: Being attracted to someone of the same sex.

You seem to be taking it as: Engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. This is what others (who use the first definition) would term homosexual acts or behavior.

I wonder how much of this thread is tied up in this cross communication. Soul is trying to say one can be attracted to men and not be committing sin. Obviously attracted to men or not, because of lust or not, because of love or not, because of money or not, having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submit the doctrine of the Jesus Christ is:


  • Nobody is born gay.
  • Homosexuality is a sin.
  • Immoral thoughts need to be resisted and repented of.

Dallin H. Oaks says, in the "Same-Gender Attraction" article that appeared in the Ensign, Oct 1995, 7, that:

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us.” (Alma 12:14)

The scripture Elder Oaks cites says:

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. (Alma 12:14) [Emphasis mine.]

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorave there seems to be definitional issues.

Soul is trying to say one can be attracted to men and not be committing sin.

Soul is wrong. See the above post.

As Alma says, our "thoughts will also condemn." Furthermore, the First Presidency has said, "immoral thought...also need to be resisted and repented of."

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submit the doctrine of the Jesus Christ is:

  • Nobody is born gay.
  • Homosexuality is a sin.
  • Immoral thoughts need to be resisted and repented of.

Dallin H. Oaks says, in the "Same-Gender Attraction" article that appeared in the Ensign, Oct 1995, 7, that:

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us.” (Alma 12:14)

The scripture Elder Oaks cites says:

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. (Alma 12:14) [Emphasis mine.]

You can submit it, doesn't mean it's true, Talks later than that by many have clarified and expanded the position. Including from Dallin Oaks.

"Now we have gays in the church. Good people. We take no action against such people – provided they don’t become involved in transgression, sexual transgression.

President Hinkely

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

Edited by Soulsearcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i didn't know we got to submit what the doctrine would be..... i wanna add some things.

Did you really not understand what I was saying?

I was submitting a conclusion--based upon scripture and statements of the General Authorities--to those reading my post.

Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can submit it, doesn't mean it's true, Talks later than that by many have clarified and expanded the position. Including from Dallin Oaks.

Such as this one by Elder Holland:

A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”

“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.

“I’m gay.”

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”

He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”

I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”

He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”

This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.

LDS.org - Liahona Article - Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorave there seems to be definitional issues.

Some people see Homosexuality as: Being attracted to someone of the same sex.

You seem to be taking it as: Engaging in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. This is what others (who use the first definition) would term homosexual acts or behavior.

I wonder how much of this thread is tied up in this cross communication. Soul is trying to say one can be attracted to men and not be committing sin. Obviously attracted to men or not, because of lust or not, because of love or not, because of money or not, having sex with someone of the same gender is a sin.

What does the attraction imply tho?

As brethren of the gospel we find ourselves ''attracted'' to the saviour or the latter-day prophet - does it mean we are homosexual?

I believe being homosexually attracted to someone involves more than just spiritual n mental admiration but physical, otherwise whats the point of labelling oneself "homosexual"?

If we agree that when homosexuality is a physical lustful attraction then a sin it is, and if so dravin, how can you imply it isnt physical then, when the attraction itself is based on a physical limitation to one gender only?

Where do we draw the line? we can all be attracted to both sexes and we often are, at what point does that make you gay, straight or bi?

Shouldn't the line be drawn at the point of physical attraction or contemplation of an immoral act or thought?

Edited by dorave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you really not understand what I was saying?

I was submitting a conclusion--based upon scripture and statements of the General Authorities--to those reading my post.

i understood you perfectly.

and i was suggesting a conclusion that based upon all your posts that you are totally wrong and starting to make a bit of a fool of yourself.

would you like me to gold plate your shovel or just let you keep digging till it all caves in on top of you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...i was suggesting a conclusion that based upon all your posts that you are totally wrong and starting to make a bit of a fool of yourself.

You're entitled to you opinion. Mine--not that you care to hear it--is that many people on this board won't abide sound doctrine.

would you like me to gold plate your shovel or just let you keep digging till it all caves in on top of you?

What I'd prefer is the moderators stop deleting my posts when they disagree with them and/or lock threads because they don't like what I'm saying. Edited by Daniel2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the i don't know how many times that it's been repeated in this thread that i know you have read from start to finish. I have no issue with Elder Packers talk. Yes members on this site and who i know in life see one line from the talk as a solid statement that there is NO biological factors. When this was taught in the past in the church members didn't divide between the urges and the actual actions and treated both equal. There is nothing wrong with the talk on the surface but it's wording had rallied a large number of the members to KNOW 100% there is no biological factor and being gay is 100% choice that can be changed without doubt if people have enough faith. This has been proven wrong. They can control it with faith, yes. Less than 25% have successfully changed and even less than 25% have stayed changed.

You keep acusing the members of the church in absolutes. Rallied a large number? How do you even know this if true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep acusing the members of the church in absolutes. Rallied a large number? How do you even know this if true?

Mostly from comments here, from members i deal with in life, and reading the comments boards about Elder Packers article and about the protest. So far it's not just one or two but a fair number. As for this being more of the norm in the past it's mostly through word of mouth, my own experiences and talking to members about how it used to be dealt with. Something to remember is when you are in the group it's directed at you tend to be more aware and able to know. Just like LDS can feel more acutely the attacks of anit's while other might not see what's being said is wrong or hurtful.

Edited by Soulsearcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between love, and lust. Lust can be an addiction, love is not.

So? Why can't a man love another man? Why does it have to be lust? Because you say so?

There have been no sicentific study's that I have seen that says same sex attraction is genetic.

And how many have you seen?

And how many have you seen (from unbiased sources) that demonstrate that same-sex attraction is not genetic?

Don't speak for God.

You mean like you did here?

God created those types of animals that way. But it wouldn't apply to humankind as it would therefore cosign their eternities to the realms outside of his kingdom.

You're entitled to you opinion. Mine--not that you care to hear it--is that many people on this board won't abide sound doctrine.

You mean that people won't abide what you believe to be sound doctrine?

What I'd prefer is the moderators stop deleting my posts when they disagree with them and/or lock threads because they don't like what I'm saying.

Perhaps if you stopped being so hateful, you wouldn't have this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me, or was the original news article headline improperly worded in the first place?

Why was it called "gay rights"? There was no issue regarding gay rights in these news articles. (Not even SLC has responsible journalism!)

There IS an issue of misunderstanding - on the side of the protestors. They read/listened to only the parts that offended them and heardened their hearts to the rest of the message.

It seems like (according to my own view of the LGBT community) that once a person has identified those tendencies in themselves... that they no longer have a choice in how to live their life.

Elder Packer said that they DO have a choice on how to live. In fact, according to our doctrine, they have a RESPONSIBILITY to live a chaste life.

Now, I'm not tempted with same-sex attraction... but when I hear that I have a choice... I have HOPE!

I suppose that someone who is full of hatred, remorse, sorrow, regret, somehow cannot feel love & hope when they feel so lost and hopeless themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me, or was the original news article headline improperly worded in the first place?

Why was it called "gay rights"? There was no issue regarding gay rights in these news articles. (Not even SLC has responsible journalism!)

There IS an issue of misunderstanding - on the side of the protestors. They read/listened to only the parts that offended them and heardened their hearts to the rest of the message.

It seems like (according to my own view of the LGBT community) that once a person has identified those tendencies in themselves... that they no longer have a choice in how to live their life.

Elder Packer said that they DO have a choice on how to live. In fact, according to our doctrine, they have a RESPONSIBILITY to live a chaste life.

Now, I'm not tempted with same-sex attraction... but when I hear that I have a choice... I have HOPE!

I suppose that someone who is full of hatred, remorse, sorrow, regret, somehow cannot feel love & hope when they feel so lost and hopeless themselves.

Except the protesters heard the same thing that a number of members on this site heard, so if one side has to learn to listen better then both sides do.

And you are right the protest wasn't about right at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly from comments here, from members i deal with in life, and reading the comments boards about Elder Packers article and about the protest. So far it's not just one or two but a fair number. As for this being more of the norm in the past it's mostly through word of mouth, my own experiences and talking to members about how it used to be dealt with. Something to remember is when you are in the group it's directed at you tend to be more aware and able to know. Just like LDS can feel more acutely the attacks of anit's while other might not see what's being said is wrong or hurtful.

Well the church is not a democracy, so regardless of peoples activity it does not change truth.

Evenso the quicker you cease from making broad generalisations the better place you'd find yourself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the church is not a democracy, so regardless of peoples activity it does not change truth.

Evenso the quicker you cease from making broad generalisations the better place you'd find yourself in.

I look at it this way. When it's true in over 50% of my interaction with members of the church, it's no longer broad, a generalization possibly, but not broad, it's at that point becoming a majority. Now if it's because the rest keep quiet and don't prove me wrong then so be it, but where the vocal prove the point, then it becomes the public image. This standard has been used against the homosexual lobby so only fair it be applied to all equally.

Also the protest wasn't for changing the truth, it was for clarification so the members have less chance in confusing the two when dealing with people they don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way. When it's true in over 50% of my interaction with members of the church, it's no longer broad, a generalization possibly, but not broad, it's at that point becoming a majority. Now if it's because the rest keep quiet and don't prove me wrong then so be it, but where the vocal prove the point, then it becomes the public image. This standard has been used against the homosexual lobby so only fair it be applied to all equally.

Also the protest wasn't for changing the truth, it was for clarification so the members have less chance in confusing the two when dealing with people they don't understand.

Most people who have a hardtime following the lords commandments or find thhemselves outside church moral expectations will always complain of LDS members lack of undstanding towards them. Sometimes it is the fault of the members delivery but most times it is just the plain severity of the doctrine or commandment itself and no ammount of fellowshipping or charity will change fundamental truths.

And yes, I aint buying the members are being hurtful, as we know the feeling of hurt ourselves, we have all suffered pain both phsyical and spiritual in our lives at different times and although we are imperfect we are caring n charitble most of the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people who have a hardtime following the lords commandments or find thhemselves outside church moral expectations will always complain of LDS members lack of undstanding towards them. Sometimes it is the fault of the members delivery but most times it is just the plain severity of the doctrine or commandment itself and no ammount of fellowshipping or charity will change fundamental truths.

And yes, I aint buying the members are being hurtful, as we know the feeling of hurt ourselves, we have all suffered pain both phsyical and spiritual in our lives at different times and although we are imperfect we are caring n charitble most of the times.

Except if you look at the quotes from the talks i posted, the protesters were simply asking for the church to stick to this stance. They were asking nothing more than for the church to clearly define this stance as it had in the past and make it clear for member to know that the stance in those talks is really what the Church holds. It's not only that gay people think there's a lack of understanding from members towards gays, it's that members don't understand the Church's declared stance themselves. In case you haven't kept up i have no problem with what the church claims is their official stance as provided from many talks on the subject over the last decade, my issue if members not listening to their leaders and making up their own doctrine. No one is questioning the official doctrine as laid out constantly in talks by leadership, we just want members to follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Soul go ahead and answer my questions in the post made to Dravin. Because it might be the Gay community that misunderstands. I think most members understood the talk pretty well.

Obviously with the number of members that support my take on things Vs yours there isn't the agreement and understanding you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share